This
case arises from an employment agreement between Allen
Nettleton and Canyon Outdoor Media, LLC ("Canyon
Outdoor"), and specifically raises issues regarding
Nettleton's entitlement to commission wages following his
resignation. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of Nettleton and denied Canyon Outdoor's motion for
summary judgment and motion for reconsideration of the
rulings on summary judgment. We vacate and remand.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Canyon
Outdoor is in the business of selling billboard
advertisements in southwestern Idaho. At some point during
the fall of 2013, Nettleton was hired by Canyon Outdoor as an
advertising salesperson. The parties did not enter into a
written contract, and, therefore, the parties' competing
assertions throughout the record are the primary source of
information on the scope of the employment agreement.

Nettleton
was hired by Canyon Outdoor owner-manager Curtis Massood to
sell billboard real estate. In April 2015, Nettleton resigned
in light of disagreements that are not at issue in this case.
At that time, Canyon Outdoor paid Nettleton the wages that it
claimed were due. Canyon Outdoor did not pay Nettleton any
additional wages following his resignation based on its
belief that he was no longer entitled to compensation because
he could not meet the terms of the employment agreement.

During
his employment, Canyon Outdoor compensated Nettleton through
three methods: a car allowance, base wages, and commission
wages. The car allowance and base wages are not at issue in
this case. Nettleton received commission wages on new and
renewal contract sales he procured. A new contract was a
contract that was either sold to a new customer or sold to a
current client and resulted in revenue above the existing
contract revenue amount with that client. A renewal contract,
on the other hand, was a contract that was sold to a current
existing client but did not result in additional revenue
above the existing contract revenue amount. When he was first
hired, Nettleton received 10% of the revenue received by
Canyon Outdoor on new contract sales. The record is unclear
as to the percentage he received for renewal contracts.

On
February 28, 2014, Nettleton and Canyon Outdoor-through
Massood-signed a written schedule setting forth commission
rates for new and renewal contracts. The schedule set rates
for renewal contracts on an adjustable scale based on the
amount of new contract months that Nettleton procured during
a given pay period. The schedule also provided that the rate
for new contracts would remain the same, stating,
"New Contracts will be paid at a Rate of 10% of
the Monthly Revenue."

Throughout
Nettleton's employment, Canyon Outdoor paid commission
wages monthly. The amount of commission wages Nettleton
received for a given pay period depended on the amount of
client revenue that Canyon Outdoor brought in from the
respective client contracts. Nettleton testified that he
never received commission wages before Canyon Outdoor
received payment from the client. Canyon Outdoor clients
normally paid in monthly terms. An exception occurred when
Nettleton procured a new contract with Snake River Dental in
November 2014. Thereafter, in December 2014, the client paid
in advance the full amount of its twelve-month contract in
exchange for a discounted rate. In this instance, after Snake
River Dental paid in full, Canyon Outdoor paid
Nettleton's commission wages for the entire contract up
front.

Following
his resignation, in August 2015, Nettleton filed a two-count
complaint against Canyon Outdoor in an effort to recover
unpaid commission wages. An amended complaint corrected the
name of the defendant and left the allegations unaltered. The
first count set forth a wage claim under the Idaho Wage Claim
Act, for which Nettleton sought treble damages pursuant to
Idaho Code section 45-615. The second count alleged a breach
of employment contract as an alternative cause of action that
sought the same amount of damages without the statutory
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.